Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

On 4/2/07, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> Pim,
> It is absolutely safe to say
> that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that
> person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not
> consider that).
>
> I see this as more than arrogant, way over the top. Johnson is neither
> ignorant, nor stupid, nor wicked. He's as well informed as you or I
> (perhaps more so, even on matters of evolution), he certainly isn't stupid
> (stupid people don't get hired to clerk for the Chief Justice of the Supreme
> Court), and he isn't any more wicked than you or me. (which is to say, yes,
> he's wicked, but that isn't what Dawkins meant)

Have you ever read Johnson's arguments against Lamoureux who points
out the many flaws in Johnson's 'arguments'?

> Dawkins' overall attitude is best seen by his response to the chair about
> science and religion that Oxford started a few years ago. My friend John
> Hedley Brooke was its first occupant, a man who does not attack science and
> does not attack religion, but who just does good objective history of
> science and religion. Dawkins made a big fuss about the university allowing
> this new chair, on the grounds that theology has nothing to contribute to
> higher education. It's a similar view to that of Pinker, who led the way in
> opposing the proposal that Harvard undergrads take one course in religion.
> One course. One course too many, according to Pinker. This type of bigotry
> is far more than opposition to bad arguments from ID, Pim.

Bigotry seems a strong word in this instance. As to opposition to bad
argument from ID, I brought this up when Dawkins aptly turned ID's
arguments against itself. Undoubtably Dawkins does not limits his
objections to just ID.

So let me ask you a question: Who is doing more damage to religious
faith? Dawkins or ID which argues that science has shown the existence
of a Designer? By making such a statement ID has made design
falsifiable, or so it claims, and thus anytime science closes a gap,
God becomes less relevant.
ID has been a gift to Dawkins and he has aptly turned it in a weapon
against that which ID claims to defend. Perhaps ID was nothing more
than a knee jerk reaction to Dawkins but their response has played
into the hands of Dawkins rather than propose a serious alternative.

ID is the gift that keeps on giving so to speak and as a scientist and
a Christian I find ID utterly destructive or irrelevant.
Scientifically speaking ID is a farce but worse, from a religious
point of view ID has handed some powerful weapons to its greatest
(perceived) enemies.
Dawkins and others would not have enjoyed such a recent popularity
were it not for ID giving them relevance.
ID may have given atheists even more reason to be respectable or
perhaps even worse, effective.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 3 01:37:58 2007